rolling stones vs. led zeppelin

stones

yeah, Stones are better if only for the fact i still like most of their hits, as oppose to Zep.

Stones. They're intentionally funny, whereas Zep are unintentionally funny (mostly through their pomposity - I think 'Stairway to Heaven' is hilarious).

I'm sure members of the Stones are guilty of some dreadful shit, but ever since I found out about Jimmy Page kidnapping 14 year old Lori Maddox and locking her up in his house I haven't been able to comfortably listen to Zep.

so Stones will take it in a landslide?

TS: Rolling Stones v. Led Zep

Yeah, but...POLL

Sure, just linking the earlier thread if someone wanted it.

Also, Zep obv.

stones

I think I'd probably vote for most other canonical classic rock bands over the Stones tbh.

They're OK though.

as far as canonical classic rock goes, only Neil Young wins over the stones imo

this is stones pretty easy. even their most overplayed songs still feel sharp and smart to me, something i'll always turn up the radio for, whereas i love zep but i'd probably love them a little more if i hadn't od'd on so much of their best stuff.

lasagna

agreed about the overplayed songs, but i guess lots of Metal/hard rock fans think the opposite

I'm sure members of the Stones are guilty of some dreadful shit, but ever since I found out about Jimmy Page kidnapping 14 year old Lori Maddox and locking her up in his house I haven't been able to comfortably listen to Zep.

Prolly the Stones win this, even though I listen to Zep a lot more, but holy crap, if you're looking for a felony/debauchery-off, I'm pretty sure these acts would tie.

Interestingly, that Zep books alludes to lots of the horrible stuff but tries to put it in context, often from a female perspective. Doesn't make it any less gross, but the takeaway is that the '70s were pretty gross and horrifying in general, at least as far as these transgressions go. Piles of coke on the table, piles of bodies in the back (in every sense).

like zep but cmon.

Zep. Stones have sucked for longer than they were good, there's way more garbage in their catalog, and Mick Jagger is ridiculous.

ever since I found out about Jimmy Page kidnapping 14 year old Lori Maddox and locking her up in his house

the Stones otoh would never indulge in such shamelessly abusive behavior, nope.

ILM's eternal hard on for the Stones is kinda sad imo

Fitting, then.

Is Hammer of the Gods the only source for that kidnapping story? I've seen it framed differently elsewhere and I'm really hesitant to trust everything in that book. (Not that it seems like the healthiest relationship any way you slice it.)

Xp to shakes
http://saintbarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/mick-jagger.jpg

Lori Maddox is quoted and referenced at length in the Hoskyns book and this never really comes up.

Mick Jagger is ridiculous.

Part of what makes them great. Jagger knows he's ridiculous, and consciously doubles-down on it, with a wink; Plant is utterly blind to how ridiculous he is.

(and anyway, Who better than both)

led zeppelin, noted unridiculous band

It may or may not be true to the extent it's been reported, but she was still 14 and he was...way older. I guess by that criteria, though, I'd have to stop listening to music because everybody's a perv.

I understand the internal conflicts people have with R. Kelly now. I've always thought he was terrible, so having to cut him out of my life meant very little. I only heard about the Jimmy Page thing in the wake of the DeRo/Hopper interview, though, so I haven't really resolved how to deal with the knowledge yet as it pertains to still enjoying Zep as a band.

The Stones were also more versatile than zep

don't really know the stones deep catalogue after goats head soup - did they ever do 'metal'?

did they ever do 'metal'?

Never even got close to attempting it.

"Crazy Mama" kinda sounds like Thin Lizzy tho.

I don't think that's quite right Tarfumes, but it sort of depends on what era we're discussing. Plant does not come across as humorless to me, quite the opposite, he seems full of joy in a way that Jagger - always the awkwardly cold and calculating one - never does. For ex. Jagger on the T.A.M.I. show is embarassing to watch; I feel bad for him, I feel bad for the audience, I feel bad for James Brown, I feel bad for anybody exposed to that painfully pale imitation of JB's showmanship. Or at Altamont where he's lamely trying to control the crowd in his top hat and cape, playacting at being dangerous while simultaneously scared of not being able to control the actually dangerous situation he's created. Or lip-syncing with David Bowie to Dancing in the Streets... I mean yeah you can enjoy some of these moments (and there are many of them in Jagger's career) as camp, they are genuinely laughable, but after awhile they just become tiresome. I don't ever want to see him chicken-walk and naughty-teacher fingerwag at me ever again. It's just obnoxious.

Plant has aged with more dignity but even at his peak I feel like he was better as a front-man at splitting the difference between reveling in the majesty and power of the music and being down-to-earth and having a bit of humor about it (I remember laughter).

I will grant that Jagger at his peak was a better lyricist than Plant, who gets by on a fair amount of gobbledeegook. But Plant had a better voice, a better presence, and could pillage and pay homage to the same sorts of sources that Jagger did without veering into the bizarre racist parody clown territory that Jagger could sometimes occupy. Plant could do country and folk and blues better, with more sympathy and more emotion. It's ALWAYS camp with Jagger. At his best the material overcomes this approach (Dead Flowers) at its worst its an abomination (You Gotta Move).

xp

Xp...and Mick Taylor later said "It's Only Rock and Roll" was an attempt at a Slade-style glam song.

Zep, and it's not that close.

The Stones were also more versatile than zep

def don't think this is true from a technical level, but you're right, Zep was not around long enough to go through all the horrid genre "experiments" Jagger wrought on, say, Bridges to Babylon. And Zep did better reggae and folk and metal than the Stones.

OTM

The Stones were also more versatile than zep

True...but Led Zeppelin sure could do a lot. If I had answered this at two- or three-year intervals throughout my life, the answer would have been the Rolling Stones more often than not. But sometimes I would have said Led Zeppelin. Right now, I'd be more inclined to play the Rolling Stones. But the thing that allows me to still love their music is to literally think of Exile and before as a different band than whatever came later.

Did they Stones ever do 30+ minute version of "Satisfaction" with multiple guitar solos?

That sounds awful. I hope the answer is no.

Stones were pop in a way Zep never were, I think that's the main issue here

I like Zep! The tension between Page and Jones' precision and Plant's yelling. Christgau was wrong: Plant wasn't a second guitar, he was Bonham's second snare drum.

I love the Stones. It isn't the "variety" or whatever -- it's Jagger's affectations versus his colleagues' grime. I dunno why Bowie and Ferry got so much shit for being "mannered" -- they learned it from Mr D.

'issue'

Stones. They're intentionally funny, whereas Zep are unintentionally funny (mostly through their pomposity - I think 'Stairway to Heaven' is hilarious).

― an office job is as secure as a Weetabix padlock (snoball), Friday, May 30, 2014 4:35 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
^^ OTM

but lol at people in this thread being "oh yeah that 35 years of utter garbage? that doesn't matter"

xp

Zep just has this pretentious quality to them that the Stones don't. Hence tortuously long guitar solos full of garbage. Hence that interview where Page interrupts himself to comment on how important everything he is saying is.

she was still 14 and he was...way older.

Sure, but a creepy/gross age difference is in a way different category than kidnapping and forcibly confining someone against her consent imo. (Fwiw, 14 was the age of consent in Canada until about a decade ago. I realize that this was not the case in CA or the UK.) From her accounts in many reports, Maddox was an eager and willing partner in the relationship: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-10-wildest-led-zeppelin-legends-fact-checked-20121121/jimmy-page-dated-a-14-year-old-girl-while-he-was-in-led-zeppelin-19691231

My favorite Zep moment will always be when in "In the Evening" the song drops for a couple seconds and Page returns with a DRDRGAGGRDGRGRGRGRGRG effect that sounds like a Hobbit trying to cut the Ring of Power with an axe.

Eagles vs. Byrds

Zep did have hits through the 70s, though, didn't they? Even if they didn't release 45s, as far as rock radio was concerned, "Stairway," "The Ocean," "Kashmir," and "All My Love" were singles. And their albums handily outsold the Stones'.

Wiki, dude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin_discography#Singles

Yeats?

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

<3

How different would this poll be if Zep had hits all through the 70s a la Stones?

― Master of Treacle

this is a v strange question

Irelavant question.

It's 2014. The perspective is different and "hits" isn't a consideration.

Wiki, dude:

Yeah, I should've clarified: they did release 45s, but songs that Zep didn't release as singles were still treated like singles on rock radio. "All My Love" got top 40 AM airplay despite only being an album track.

"—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released.

so the whole "Led Zep didn't release singles" thing basically only means "...in the UK."?

Sure, Jagger has the edge when it comes to the lyrics, but on the whole I can't see why this isn't Zeppelin. The musicianship in Zeppelin for a start is a hundred thousand million light years ahead of The Stones, and Zeppelin kept the quality control at quite a high level, whereas the gulf between The Stones best and worst stuff is as wide as its possible to be.

I do think Charlie Watts is underrated as a drummer (the way he handles the tempo changes on 'Midnight Rambler' for example, is masterful), but Bonham just kills him. You don't see the producer sitting in on drums on Zeppelin records 'cuz the drummer can't do it. John Paul Jones runs rings around Wyman. And Page vs. Keef? Goes without saying, really.

right well obviously if you just focus on musicianship the obvious answer is Rush

http://susiemadrak.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/wahmbulance-1.jpg

right well obviously if you just focus on musicianship the obvious answer is Rush

― resulting post (rogermexico.), Saturday, June 7, 2014 6:52 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yes, Rush run rings around The Stones too.

But y'know, Rush aren't an option here!

Yes, Rush run rings around The Stones too.

If the quantity and velocity of notes = musicianship, then yes, Rush absolutely runs rings around the Rolling Stones, no question.

Fortunately, general aesthetic standards have not fallen to those depths. At least, I hope they haven't.

suggest rush

If the quantity and velocity of notes = musicianship, then yes, Rush absolutely runs rings around the Rolling Stones, no question.

Fortunately, general aesthetic standards have not fallen to those depths. At least, I hope they haven't.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Saturday, June 7, 2014 11:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Quantity and velocity of notes? You're making it sound like Rush just jerk off on their instruments for the sake of it, and I couldn't disagree with that more. Every note they play has purpose.

"that's a load-bearing A# eh"

Sure, Jagger has the edge when it comes to the lyrics, but on the whole I can't see why this isn't Zeppelin.

Fortunately I don't listen to lyrics much and still prefer Jagger as a singer.

What do you I don't hear lyrics crowd hear when you listen to music? Jagger sounding like a dolphin or Charlie Browns teacher? Also I seem to remember you quoting all kinds of lyrics you didn't like in the War on Drugs thread

well yeah but that was an inquisition

You were also hyper analyzing Miranda Lambert post Burkean lyrics on your blog

you know, it's sorta, please allow me to introduce myself, i'm a man, of wealth, and taste, been around for a long lnagnlg yeeear sto manny a ma soool an faaayth ani s round when JESUS CHRIST hadis momen adoubt and pain

but usually less pieced-together than that

The musicianship in Zeppelin for a start is a hundred thousand million light years ahead of The Stones, and Zeppelin kept the quality control at quite a high level, whereas the gulf between The Stones best and worst stuff is as wide as its possible to be.

ilm often enjoys the challenging opinion that being interested in musicianship in any way = loving Yngwie and Paganini

j outed as the ghost of Rex Harrison, I had an inkling tbh

If you like lyrics and musicianship you only lore the fictional straw man band comprised of ynwgie, colin meloy from Decembrists, tony levin on stick bass, and terry bozio on drums

for a straw man band you gotta have a straw hat guy on geetar

http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/kiyukata51/imgs/5/c/5cd45752-s.jpg

What do you I don't hear lyrics crowd hear when you listen to music?

I hear the words, but they pass right through my mind—I don't remember more than a couplet or two from most songs I've heard in my life. (Some of those get stuck in my head as loops, which is really annoying.) That's one of the things I like best about death metal—the total incomprehensibility of the vocals makes the lyrics a non-issue.

ilm often enjoys the challenging opinion that being interested in musicianship in any way = loving Yngwie and Paganini

― Now I Am Become Dracula (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, June 8, 2014 2:19 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That's interesting, since I loathe Yngwie Malmsteen with a passion. No denying his "chops", but his music doesn't excite me in any way. Whereas I can put on a Rush or Zeppelin album and focus on the note choices, the interplay between the instrumentalists and the way they serve the compositions and the whole musical quality of it is exciting to my ears. I get this feeling from the classic Deep Purple and original Alice Cooper band records, and '70s Queen too. Hell, pre-rehab Aerosmith too.

It's very rare that I feel that same sense of musicality from The Stones. There are occasions... such as 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking' and the way the tempos change on 'Midnight Rambler' etc. I appreciate that the Stones' sloppiness is part of the charm, though. Above all, however, it's the songwriting that draws me to The Stones, rather than the way it's played or performed. And I dare say most of my favourite "musical" moments in The Stones catalogue comes from sessioneers like Nicky Hopkins, Bobby Keyes, Al Kooper, Billy Preston etc.

Lets hope this poll helps end this recent run of Zeppelin related discussion on ILM. This was a total destruction, and well justified.

zeppelin fucking rules

"satisfaction" fucking rules

But Bill you know the thing about...tthhe...recent...zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz zzzzz

I actually didn't vote, couldn't decide also they seem so different to me

'Achilles Last Stand' fucking rules

indeed it does

Dancing Days fucking rules

You don't see the producer sitting in on drums on Zeppelin records 'cuz the drummer can't do it.
is this actually the reason that miller plays drums on some stones songs? genuinley curious - i think i just figured charlie wasn't around for the session and they needed a drummer.

i'm going to go out on a limb and say that zep rules and the stones rule

You don't see the producer sitting in on drums on Zeppelin records 'cuz the drummer can't do it.
is this actually the reason that miller plays drums on some stones songs? genuinley curious - i think i just figured charlie wasn't around for the session and they needed a drummer.

― tylerw, Monday, June 9, 2014 10:44 AM (4 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

in a doc i saw on the making of exile....basically....keith would sleep forever and then spend a bunch of time cutting up his heroin for the day from this big ass shipment he'd brought at the beginning of the summer....and so he's not ready to roll until like 9 at night by which point wyman and charlie had been waiting for him for like 6 hours or something and charlie would just say fuck off and leave before keith was ready so keith would do stuff w/the ppl who were around

also i love bonham and i love watts but we're not gonna play the "hard to do" necessarily = better thing are we?

yeah i mean, bonham couldn't play like watts, watts couldn't play like bonham. both were just right for their respective bands.

i'm not even a cream fan but man watching that ginger baker beware of mr. baker doc made a pretty good case that he was the best drummer of that era, that he could have done what bonham did and what watts did (and more in terms of playing african and jazz in a real way)

too bad about the whole being an asshole thing (albeit a v funny asshole)

more to the point: let's imagine Charlie playing with John Lydon.

is this actually the reason that miller plays drums on some stones songs? genuinley curious - i think i just figured charlie wasn't around for the session and they needed a drummer.

Watts was incapable of playing "You Can't Always Get..." with those odd accents, I've read.

guess so - jagger sez "It proved to be quite difficult to record because Charlie couldn't play the groove and so Jimmy Miller had to play the drums."
i'll have to listen to it, can't really think what would be so tough about the groove?

But Charlie managed to play it in concert without any trouble.

He played it differently though, without all the crash-cymbal stuff

Yeah, that's true. But his RnR Circus performance of it is fine, and not drastically different from the recording.

tbh i think i would rather listen to some of those epic versions from 1972 than the studio take.

you can't always get what you want... you can't always want what you get... this is not a love soooooooong